Establishment of the Israeli State

¶ … establishment of the Israeli State and the long subsequent series Arab-Israeli wars over it has been at the heart of Middle Eastern conflict over six decades. The fundamental conflict between Israel and the Palestines displaced by the first offensive Arab attacks on the nascent Israeli state continues to fuel tensions throughout the entire region. Unlike many other conflicts that eventually reach a peaceful settlement, the intractable conflict over the Palestinian refugee issue has developed into a continuous cycle of violence that is not leading towards any agreement or peace. Complex issues of identities, fulfillment of basic needs, nationalism, religious zeal, and cultural differences have compounded the problem.

The various influences demand an objective analysis and a philosophical approach to laying groundwork for stability brokered by the Quartet with appropriate lessons learned from past initiatives such as the Oslo Accords and Camp David Peace Talks. That analysis must also address the involvement of Hamas and the effect of their emergence on the conflict, as well as the role of Syria as an external stakeholder in the conflict. Finally, a comprehensive analysis must also address other current challenges towards establishing peace between Israel and Palestine, and present a productive outlook on future efforts to resolve the conflict.

ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT AS AN INTRACTABLE CONFLICT

Generally, intractable conflicts of international affairs are characterized by common defining characteristics. Such conflicts may transpire between nation states, factions, and individuals, and typically resist any attempts at peaceful mitigation. The Arab-Israeli conflict is merely one contemporary example of conflict that has persisted both internally and externally, and evolved into a self-perpetuating cycle in which both sides share vested interest in prolonging its existence.

The repercussions of the continuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been felt on both the macro and micro levels of the international community. Any successful conflict resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict will be complex and intricate and comprehension and management of the key issues is necessary to prevention of further escalation.

Armed aggression is perceived as unavodibale on both sides. Israel's identity has always been an armed struggle for survival. Without a decisive military advantage, Israel could not have lasted into the 21st century. Years of war and violent attack from Arab neighbors have necessitated the Israeli mindset into the use of military force to preserve national security. Palestinians perceive the need for a continual struggle for concessions with hopes of achieving self sovereignty without which they lack formal political channels to negotiate with Israel. Their disadvantaged position and their indoctrination with hatred generates violence and with every concession, their reliance oo violence as a viable tool is only reinforced. Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip precipitated by conflict with Hamas, for just one example, was viewed as a "victory for armed resistance."

Israel perceives itself as having exhausted every other tool leaving no choice but increased violence, prolonging the conflict into an intractable state.

PEACE EFFORTS (BELIEFS vs. PERCEPTIONS)

Palestinian perceptions towards the conflict are increasingly hostile, causing greater divisions within the society. Whereas a joint Israeli-Palestinian public opinion poll taken in 2005 suggests that the majority of Palestinians were in favor of ending the conflict, the same poll revealed that armed resistance was widely perceived as effective against Israel. In the poll 65% of the Palestinians were in support of a compromise ending the conflict, yet "82% of the Palestinians saw the evacuation of the Israeli settlements from Gaza as a victory for the Palestinian armed struggle against Israel."

Likewise, the failure of the Oslo Accords and subsequent second Intifada has caused the Palestinians to perceive violence as an effective means for negotiation with Israel.

Palestinians are also politically divided, hindering any general consensus on how to deal with Israel and to govern themselves. Palestine's political parties are divided across the ideological axioms of Islam, Nationalism, and Marxism. Parties such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad perceive Palestine as an Islamic State and are determined to institute Islamic Law. The Nationalist movement led by Fatah, dominated Palestinian politics until very recently. Their goal was the complete "liberation of Palestine," and the establishment of an independent democratic state. The Marxist parties include the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and the Palestinian People's Party (PPP). While the Marxist movement has not been able to overcome the Nationalistic or Islamic movements, they are open to negotiations with Israel toward the establishment of a state in which both Palestinians and Jews can live together.

Several prevailing perceptions have permeated society in both Israel and Palestinian territories which reflect bias on both sides. Since these perceptions have been deeply ingrained into the cultural mindsets, they are unlikely to change unless Arab and Israeli leaders lead the way and promote a mindset that is more conducive negotiating a lasting peace. In order to accomplish this, leaders on both sides must first disavow the notion that they can "have it all" and understand that concessions will have to be made.

Geopolitical changes in the region have created an opportunity to negotiate a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine that has not existed since 1948.

Meanwhile, the Hamas victory lent considerable credence to the claim that Palestinians are "violent" and support "terror."

"PEACEBUILDING ISLANDS"

Due to the costliness, length, and propensity for escalation of violence, the intractable conflict in Israel has beenprofoundly resistant to conflict mitigation, yet it must be resolved through peaceful means. Several attempts at ending the protracted conflict within the Mideast have proven unsuccessful but various "Peace Building Islands" do exist within Israel's borders today. These bastions of hope highlight plausible peaceful resolutions and cross psycho-social, economic, and educational barriers preexistent within Israel today.

The creation of the co-op village of "Neve Shalom," near the town of Latrun in Israel, is one of these Peace Building Islands. Built in the early 1970's for Palestinian and Jewish citizens, it is one effort designed to demonstrate that Arabs and Israeli's can indeed live together peacefully.

It boasts a population of approximately 170 families and is democratically governed and jointly owned by Arabs and Israelis; its community holds no political party affiliation. The village members dwell upon its founding creed of communal acceptance, mutual respect, tolerance, and collaboration in establishing its community projects. Two of these projects are the village's humanitarian relief program, aimed at assisting Palestinian villagers overcome by the ongoing conflict, and the establishment of its exceptional "School for Peace."

The School for Peace is another resolution tool implemented through educational programs aimed at promoting Arab-Israeli understanding and community outreach through cultural and social relations. The school offers varying levels of education in bi-national and bilingual curriculum, communal projects, and offers training programs and workshops to students, teachers, and professionals from the village and local communities. Its main purpose is to educate Arabs and Israelis in developing and reinforcing critical thinking skills and identifying those regressive mechanisms prevalent in both societies that serve to perpetuate the ongoing conflict.

A third attempt at conflict mitigation of the Arab-Israeli predicament is the establishment of localized anti-war groups such as the "Combatants for Peace" created in 2005. Composed of both Arab and Israeli war veterans including former Israeli Defense Force soldiers and Palestinian fighters.

Their platform is that the Arab-Israeli conflict can only be resolved through nonviolent joint efforts aimed at ceasing hostilities between the Palestinians and Israelis. Some of the group's goals include educating and promoting non-violent struggle, creating political pressure on both political party leaderships, and resuming productive dialogue. In addition to sponsoring several public forums at universities and schools, they also support meetings for victims of violence, they participate in re-building homes destroyed in the ongoing conflict, and conduct relief effort convoys to the Gaza strip.

QUARTET STRATEGIES FOR PEACE

The decline of social and economic factors during the Oslo process exacerbated Palestinian frustrations ultimately leading to their acceptance of violent extremists "at the forefront of Palestinian politics"

. While the failure of the Oslo Accords and Camp David peace talks was the primary influence on the second Intifada, the escalation of violence during the second intifada forced Israel into an even greater defensive posture and necessitated a military response. Whereas the first Intifada led to emerging peace talks between Israel and Palestine, the second gave rise to the factional politics that shape the Palestinian political landscape today and pose an even greater obstacle to the peace process

. In the Annapolis peace talks, Israel has demanded that the Palestines be a cooperative partner in the peace process as a prerequistite for negotiations.

The two main focuses of the 2008 Annapolis Conference were the International Quartet's 2002 Road Map and permanent status negotiations leading to a peace agreement by the end of 2008.

Israel will make no concessions without execution of the Road Map. Therefore, if the Palestinians wish to realize their goal of Statehood, they must first eradicate the militant factor that continues to use terrorist tactics in attempt to realize their goals or seek vengeance upon a perceived enemy

. Perhaps this is the fatal flaw in the Road Map, but according to President Abbas, "the Annapolis summit saw a resumption of talks between the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and Israel after a seven-year hiatus. Both sides pledged to do everything possible to draft a peace settlement by the end of 2008, as well as to come to an agreement on the form of a future independent Palestinian state."

Unfortunately, the talks stopped when Hamas' launched rockets into Israel necessitating a destructive military retaliation.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan emphasized, "It is the view of the Quartet that all members of a future Palestinian Government must be committed to nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the road map."

VIEW OF HAMAS

The U.S. non-negotiation policy towards terrorist organizations also affects the prospect of successful negotiations with the Palestinians. After the 2006 democratic elections, Hamas became a leader in the Palestinian government, which undermined any U.S.-Palestinian negotiations by virtue of Hamas's official status as a terrorist organization. Rene Wadlow of the Carnegie Council pointed out that "the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, the Israeli Government, the U.S. Government, and to a lesser extent the European Union, would like to see living conditions in Gaza get worse so that the Hamas administration will fail."

As we saw in 2008, this effort had the exact opposite effect and enraged the Palestinians into uniting themselves behind Hamas. If the U.S. only deals with a portion of the government with limited control, negotiations will fail to produce a united Palestinian State.

The EU committed itself to the reconstruction of Palestine after the 2008 Israel-Hamas conflict. According to Javier Solana, EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy speaking at the International Conference for the Reconstruction of Gaza on March 2, 2009, "while taking care of the immediate needs for reconstruction, we must place our efforts in the broader perspective of a comprehensive resolution of the conflict that is the root cause of the tragedy of Gaza."

He also stressed that "urgent work is needed to restore a credible and sustained political process that will lead to a just and lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike, and ultimately all the peoples in the region."

Curiously, he named President Abbas and the PA as the lead for distribution of the financial aid, bolstering Palestinian support for them. His omission of Hamas and the EU's continued rejection of Hamas illustrates the conundrum of electing an organization with an extensive terrorist history as the elected government of the Palestinians responsible for international relations.

Russia took a different perspective to Hamas and the conflict. After the 2006 Palestinian elections, Russia recognized Hamas as a legitimately elected government instead of a terrorist group.

Russia has capitalized on the old Soviet agreements with Arab nations and Israel, partly because its large contingent of Jewish emmigrants to Israel and Russia's large Muslim population in Central Asia, naturally predisposes it to a more neutral alignment than the U.S. Russia seems open to all sides of the conflict.

Then-president Putin met with President Abbas in 2008 to discuss Russia's increasing role in the peace process, even though President Abbas stated that Hamas was "not part of an official government" and had no right to be invited to a conference.

While the Quartet backed the Road Map vision, the U.S. support for the annexation of settlements in the West Bank became an obstruction to its pursuit. Despite Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, failure of the peace process led to Hamas's success in the Palestinian elections in 2006

. Furthermore, there is no single unified political body that speaks for all segments of the Palestinian people, the refugees of the Diaspora, those living in the occupied territories, and the Palestinians living in Israel. In order to realize Palestinian national goals during the peace process, it is essential that the negotiating table represents all Palestinians, not just those of the occupied territories. The lack of consensus on the goals of the negotiation process remains a serious challenge to progress in that regard.

In addition to their position towards Israel, the Hamas government will likely run contrary to the more modernizing and secular elements in the region

. "To promote such a positive situation, the Arab states need to demonstrate that they have the capacity and the political will to rein in extremist groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah, should they refuse to heed the Arab collective will. Thus far, several Arab states have not only refused to impede the activities of such groups; they have actually supported their violent resistance to Israel."

According to Ayman El-Amir, former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington, DC, "the PA and Arab governments involved, mainly Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab states, realize that without the active involvement of Hamas's administration, no reconstruction will be possible."

As of 17 March 2009, Hamas and Fatah were negotiating semantic points over "respect for" or "abide by" past peace agreements with Israel.

If successful, the united PLO as the PA would legally represent all Palestinians under the 1993 Oslo Accords.

NECESSITY FOR INCLUSION OF SYRIA IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS

Syria is a key player in any Arab-Israeli peace-process negotiation. In order for Israel to achieve their goals of security, it must also address the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for a comprehensive peace. The Sunni-Shiite conflict that has spread throughout the Middle East has placed Syria in a position whereby the necessity to portray a unified Sunni front has become imperative.

Syria is host to 10 official and three unofficial Palestinian refugee camps, which support "119,055"

registered refugees. The Syrian government supports Hamas's struggle against Israel, but "is keenly interested in ending Israeli occupation of its Golan Heights and restoring the rights of the Palestinians."

Israel's 40-plus year occupation of the Golan Heights after capturing it in a purely defensive war is a major issue blocking an Israel-Syria peace treaty, which is currently being mediated by Turkey. This is likely being used as a bargaining chip with Syria to aid the peace process, which would lead to an independent Palestine. Syria's strong relations with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas place it in a unique position to argue for Hamas' inclusion in the Palestinian government. "U.S. Envoy Jeffrey Feltman said after four hours of talks with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallim that Syria could play "an important and constructive role" in the region."

CHALLENGES AND OUTLOOK

Much attention is given to external factors of the peace process; however, it is entirely plausible for the internal factors that exist within Palestine, such as corruption and factional strife, to play a greater role in the outcome. In Palestine, an authoritarian regime may be favored over the democratic route simply because it is more convenient. Continued failure on the part of elected officials in Palestine to end the Israeli occupation of the territories would certainly make that option more feasible

At best, the Palestinian cause sought to accept and integrate the State of Israel -- their inherent right to exist -- into their own narrative. At worst, they sought to eliminate the State altogether and deny their right to exist

. The use of tactics to provoke Israeli retaliation, thereby undermining support for peaceful negotiations, will have to end.

CONCLUSION

Israel cannot thumb its nose at the Arab Initiative without damaging their ability to successfully negotiate their national concerns with Palestine and other Arab States such as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. Israel and Palestine have arrived at an impasse in the conflict, where neither side can take steps towards peace without making major concessions. Grievances over years of violence, territorial disputes, relative deprivation, inequality, and social conditioning continue to fuel the conflict. Arab States such as: Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan are also stakeholders in the conflict. Their support of Palestinian organizations like Hamas and the PLO, sustainment of large Palestinian refugee camps, and land disputes with Israel have raised the conflict to the forefront of their national concerns.

The failures of peace initiatives framed by the Quartet such as the Oslo Accords and Annapolis Conference have exacerbated the conflict. Instead of hopes for peace, these failed negotiations are viewed by some as proof that regional peace will never be achieved. The emergence of Hamas is another key inhibitor in the current Road Map towards peace. Not only has Hamas rekindled violent conflict with Israel, but it has further fragmented Palestinian solidarity, which impedes a unified Palestinian body that can negotiate for peace. Despite internal peace building islands such as the village of Neve Shalom and Combatants for Peace, the conflict will likely continue unless Israel and Palestine re-evaluate their perceptions and uphold concessions that will have to be made.